First thought always comes in mind is that what is difference between these two .
Second, They both are attack helicopters but which one of them is better than other .
The RUDRA attack helicopter is multirole weaponised DHRUV and the LCH is entirely attack-role helicopter that means LCH have only task and that is to attack and destroy the enemy . The very reason behind it's development .
But is the LCH is superior in attack-role ?

Lets take a look at them .

COMPARISON1] General Characteristics :- It doesn't look there is much difference other than a major one i.e. Capacity .

The helicopter is fitted with an integrated defensive aids system (IDAS-3) from SAAB, which delivered the systemâ€™s components while the aircraft integration was provided by HAL. IDAS-3 utilizes UV missile approach warning sensors, LWS-310 laser warning sensors and RWS-300 radar warning receivers and flare dispensers. Two units are clearly visible on the upper cockpit sides .

70% hardware of these both helicopters are same that may be easier for maintenance but does not gives LCH much of importance .

In the end, there is only one thing to say and that is LCH's final prototype[TD3] yet to be seen and for now only TD1 and TD2 are produced but it is said that there isn't much difference between the latest TD2 and the final prototype TD3 . Hopefully TD3 will emerge as a true attack helicopter .

The Mil-24/35 can carry 8 troopsand its own weapons load, and the HAL-Rudra can carry 12 (or 14) passengersand/or its own weapons load? (I think for HAL-Rudra, it is "or," not "and." Need clarification.)

So, let me guess. They are using the term passengers, and not troops, because, perhaps they are talking about average humans, not soldiers with their battle gear, weapons, and ammunition.

We do not know how many troops HAL-Rudra will be able to carry, but I'll be surprised if it can carry more than 8.

One difference between HAL-LCH and HAL-Rudra is that the former has a tandem seating while the latter has an adjacent seating of the gunner and pilot.

The Mil-24/35 can carry 8 troopsand its own weapons load, and the HAL-Rudra can carry 12 (or 14) passengersand/or its own weapons load? (I think for HAL-Rudra, it is "or," not "and." Need clarification.)

So, let me guess. They are using the term passengers, and not troops, because, perhaps they are talking about average humans, not soldiers with their battle gear, weapons, and ammunition.

We do not know how many troops HAL-Rudra will be able to carry, but I'll be surprised if it can carry more than 8.

One difference between HAL-LCH and HAL-Rudra is that the former has a tandem seating while the latter has an adjacent seating of the gunner and pilot.

Click to expand...

Precisely why asked for roles envisaged. seating and ceiling envelope are the two main things that grab attention.

There was a news item that I thought was funny and ironic. It was about US soldiers strapping themselves on the outside of Apache helos on a mission to rescue a downed pilot because the Apache does not have a passenger carrying capacity. I have heard people call the Mi-25/35 "not a true attack helo" precisely because it can carry passengers. Rudra can be used for CSAR (Combat Search and rescue) over hostile terrain, but not the LCH.

The roles are different for LCH and Rudra. Rudra can be used for CSAR and to drop troops off in spl ops missions while retaining an attack and defence capability. LCH is teeth alone.

First thought always comes in mind is that what is difference between these two .
Second, They both are attack helicopters but which one of them is better than other .
The RUDRA attack helicopter is multirole weaponised DHRUV and the LCH is entirely attack-role helicopter that means LCH have only task and that is to attack and destroy the enemy . The very reason behind it's development .
But is the LCH is superior in attack-role ?

Lets take a look at them .

COMPARISON1] General Characteristics :- It doesn't look there is much difference other than a major one i.e. Capacity .

The helicopter is fitted with an integrated defensive aids system (IDAS-3) from SAAB, which delivered the systemâ€™s components while the aircraft integration was provided by HAL. IDAS-3 utilizes UV missile approach warning sensors, LWS-310 laser warning sensors and RWS-300 radar warning receivers and flare dispensers. Two units are clearly visible on the upper cockpit sides .

70% hardware of these both helicopters are same that may be easier for maintenance but does not gives LCH much of importance .

In the end, there is only one thing to say and that is LCH's final prototype[TD3] yet to be seen and for now only TD1 and TD2 are produced but it is said that there isn't much difference between the latest TD2 and the final prototype TD3 . Hopefully TD3 will emerge as a true attack helicopter .

also add respective comparisons of armour,maneuverability,and network centric capabilities
rudra is for supportive use while lch is for front line use

Click to expand...

LCH do have "armour protection" but its not like 'totally' armored that's because to keep it "light-weight" neither they added any extra weapons for the same 'weight' issue but the less weight doesn't improves LCH performance much beyond RUDRA.
however it have stealth "profiling" but it is not a 'stealth fighter'. This is my point exactly LCH supposed to be attack helicopter but it's neither properly armored nor heavily armed any more than RUDRA and it's as same as RUDRA in maaneuverability.

LCH has 20% better rate of climb with max altitude uoto 6500m. Should be useful in fire and scoot type of situation specially at high altitude areas(I'm getting the idea from youtube video of MI17 operation during Kargil war).
More useful payload, Definitely Small(hard to aim at using small arms) and more stealthy with better aerodynamics. With same payload, In real terms performance difference should be visible between 2 machines.
Even though it is called Light attack Heli, it ought to have much better Armor then Rudra.

EDIT: Also I think We are going to have the Rudra as the light version of MI-17. Same as How LCH will be the lighter version of Apache. There could be tasks, which can be effectively done by Rudra at lower cost instead of MI-17, where we don't need the capacity of Mi-17.

If our top brass push hard, Rudra also has a very good potential for Export(better then LCH, as LCH will face tough competition from similar helos). Being a Cheap and multirole Heli Rudra does have more advantage for smaller nations forces.